User talk:Desk1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Trafalgar
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Astrotrain 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to say you do not always have to consult someone before you remove something they have done, and this was one of those cases. I am not saying you not photos are not of good quality, they are, but I feel that this information is not relevant to The Queen and Princess Anne's articles. They belong on a page about Trafalgar (perhaps you could create a page about the Trafalgar 200 Celebrations). The Royal Family take part in lots of important events, but very few warrant an entry on their page, and I feel this is one that doesn't. If you disagree they please go to another user (I perhaps suggest a user that is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. --Berks105 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've just discovered there is actually a Trafalgar 200 page, maybe you could add to that article, as it currently quite short. --Berks105 09:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could I also point out The Queen is not "Her Royal Highness" as you keep putting. She "Her Majesty" (but it isnt really necessary to put this in the articles anyway when refering to her). --Berks105 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Astronian and Berks105. Your comments are welcome. Throughout Wiki pictures have links to the photographers web site; which is normal practice in photo journalism. Where we are getting hung up appears to be that the pictures and the source book are my own copyright. Nevertheless they are equally as valid; my pictures are widely published in other international works and the publishers pay me to use them and agree to place my formal accreditation including website with the picture. Wikipedia are not paying for the pictures but I am certain would accept that normal photo journalism practice on accrediation (includes source books) and copyright applies. I accept that very direct marketing of products is outside of Wiki rules; but reference books I am sure are treated differently, within reason of course. For example throughout Wiki many recent books are referred to and carry the ISBN number which Wiki automatically picks up and makes into an inernal link a' la ISBN 0955300401 perhaps even here will convert to a link. Books are sources of knowledge as is photojournalism and Wikipedia is a world wide source of knowledge made available for free, they have a common objective.
In general terms I accept that adding web site links to the actual article page might not be appropriate and the context should be considered carefully before inserting this type of link.
Do you feel it always appropriate to add the book title and ISBN number in the further reading section, of course in relevant articles? An opinion on this will be appreciated, as even these have been removed without referring to me first!
My understanding is that Wikipedia content can be added by anyone anywhere. Wikipedia guidelines are clear and do not approve unilateral removal of other peoples work and recommends discussion first. Of course there must be exceptions such as blatant vandalism. Not agreeing with the content is no reason for discourteous reversion.
It is accepted that I am a complete novice but my interpretation of the Wikipedia concept is that articles are limitless in their potential size and can be expanded by anybody, anywhere. As long as the information is factually accurate and of interest to any sector of the global audience then it should not be edited out. Otherwise the readership is at risk of being manipulated by a subset of the total information available, presented from the perspective of individual imperfect people (as we all are) or groups of people with a common agenda. I am not suggesting that this is the case here.
Some of the unofficial pictures in the articles are of poor quality; one even is a 'promo' for enya.com. I still feel my pictures warrant a place in the disputed articles as they add a further dimension to them, as stated in a previous discussion it is accepted that the text is not such an issue as they mainly support the pix. Trafalgar 200 was not just a single event; it was of enormous global public relations value to the Royal Family. No specific reason has been given for removing either of the pictures, other than a suggestion that I go to another member of your "project group" for another opinion. Might it be more appropriate if I ask another Wikipedian perhaps in the USA, who will be independent? I have respected your views on the text. Perhaps some time is needed to sleep on this one?
Thanks for the tip on protocol when writing on the Royal Family.
With best wishes, I know we all have the same objective.
Must remember to change my name from Desk1 to my full name. Did not realise I would have to live with an anonymous handle.
Des Kilfeather 86.141.102.229 12:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Astrotrain and Berks105,
Have given it some more thought and would like to make the following compromise proposal:
1. Trafalgar 200 and International Fleet Review articles are added to the list of links on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article.
2. Subject to no objections from editors, I add more pictures to those articles with just my ISBN in the article page for up front reference purposes.
3. We all work to improve those target articles which currently lack substance.
Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I still do not believe information about Trafalgar 200 belongs on The Queen's page, not even a link. It is not relevant enough to her, it was just one of Her many duties. She undertakes hundreds of official duties a year, and one single one (however important to The Royal Navy it was) is not relevant to The Queen's page. I would recommened you focus your efforts on making the Trafalgar 200 article a lot longer and better. --Berks105 18:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy
Welcome to Wikipedia, just a tip from a user, please make sure what you are adding to articles is accurate. Especially if you have written a piece yourself and then paste it into several articles in which it is relevant as I have, or have seen a number of articles which you have pasted good content about the 2005 Trafalgar 200 fleet review, only you have entitled each one "2006 Fleet Review". Correcting these mistakes later is harder than checking for them before posting them. Many Thanks JonEastham 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello JonEastham, thank you for your welcome, it is a relief to get it.
Yes, I think I forgot to press the save button when correcting 2006. My memory is not so great these days, and there are quite a few things to take on board with Wikipedia; even forgot to log on for my last discussion. Will try and take a more structured approach in future. Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 12:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE:How do we differentiate between spam and references to published works?
Sorry but due to technical problems with my broadband connection, I can't access my email account, so have only seen your comments this morning. Although I appreciate that you may have uploaded the images in good faith- I do not believe it is appropiate for you to upload your own commerical images and plaster them over various Wikipedia articles and link to your own work. In many cases, the work added was not relevant to the article in question; and some images were particuarly poor quality- (eg Image:WY2T1801a.jpg). If you have an interest in the Trafalgar review- I suggest working on that article and adding only relevant images where appropiate. Astrotrain 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Astrotrain, you have not had any input to USS Saipan before now therefore it is not appropriate for you to make deletions to other peoples work on that article. Please revert back my contribution. If you have a problem with using my images on the grounds you state I suggest you make a formal complaint to Wikipedia. Of course I will be happy to comply with whatever they suggest. In the meantime I will consider any more of your "non constructive" edits to my work to be vandalism; constructive edits of course are welcomed. The images are not commercial. DP Kilfeather Desk1 13:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- As an established editor in Wikipedia, I am free to edit any article I choose. The ghastly images you uploaded to these pages were not necessary, and cluttered up the article, therefore I removed them. You should look at the notice before every edit " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" Astrotrain 14:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image licensed
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:WY2T1125 saipan.jpg
. Note I have tagged your other uploads also. Astrotrain 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Have emailed Wikipedia for advice on which is best licence template to use. Images are licenced free of charge for use in Wikipedia only they may get back to you. DP Kilfeather Desk1 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brief Response to your enquiry
Des (I hope I am in order calling you that),
I read briefly the information you gave me. Obviously, further examination is required, but I feel that prima facie you are in the right.
The fact that the placement of any links to you, your work, or any outside website unrelated to the topic of the article in question is inappropriate is beyond dispute; however, where the simple addition of the pictures are concerned, Wikipedia is a website built first and foremost upon contribution. Indeed, a great many (perhaps even most) of the pictures adorning our articles were taken and added by a contributor themselves, and while original research is not permitted on articles, pictures, so long as they provide color to a page, are completely permissible whether they be amateur or professional — indeed, professional contributions, where available, are preferred.
The one caveat to this is that there are copyright issues both within the UK and transnationally that make use of professional pictures problematic. However it is my understanding that so long as the creator of a work — to whit, the photographer of a picture — explicitly authorizes its use (and does so in a manner concurrent to copyright laws), the use of that picture is not only allowable but desirable. The fact that your work is independently recognized as being of merit only strengthens this desirability.
I must stress that you may have gotten off on the wrong foot with the contributors to these articles by advertizing yourself as the author of the pictures in a way they may have found ostentatious; however, it seems to me that this is a misunderstanding more than anything and that your work can be a valuable asset to Wikipedia. I still need to look deeper into the thing, and I am not terribly up on our picture policy, but this seems to be fairly straightforward.
One question: do you own the photographs completely? I.E., does anyone else share the rights to their use and publication with you? If so, that may be the problem: all owners of a work must license its use if it's not in the public domain.
Wally 23:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Wally for your rapid response. Yes the pictures are all 100% my copyright. Whilst you are looking in more detail I will refrain from adding my external link to any article pages and will keep it solely in the picture page; book title and ISBN in the main picture description (but not on the article page) and website link in the picture copyright area. In this way that information will not be seen by the article reader unless they decide to click to research the picture in more detail. The picture detail in itself may be of interest as my camera provides good macro data and those interested in pictures usually also want to know more about the artist. My main concern now is to get licence feedback from my email to Wikipedia to ensure that Astrotrain cannot delete the images, is this called blanking? Thanks again, Des Desk1 09:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Policy on Wikipedia
Des- may I refer you to Wikipedia:Image_copyright_issues_for_dummies- which should explain how to upload images and tag them correctly. Basically, Wikipedia only allows free content images- ie those in the public domian, or released on the GFDL license. Although you are the copyright holder of the images you uploaded and are happy to have them on Wikipedia, it is not right that you do so if you allow use only on Wikipedia- as this is a restirction that does not comply with GFDL.
So if you want to keep these images, you will neeed to re-licence them as appropiate, or they will be deleted under Wikipedia image policies. Hope this helps Astrotrain 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well hello again Astrotrain™. The issue you raise is being considered formally by Wikipedia licencing specialists who will I am sure be making a ruling quite soon. As stated all along the line I will follow any formal rulings that are made. I do not own Wikipedia nor do I claim any rights to place my pictures in it and "fully support" its objectives and policies. However I remain keen to support Wikipedia with what little knowledge I have and that just happens to be via pictures.
Every user in Wikipedia must be taking comfort from your enthusiasm to weed out copyright guideline infringements. Hopefully you will take this to its logical next stage and tag the very high number of images on Wikipedia that have some restrictions applied in good faith by other Wikipedia supporting photographers. Or perhaps you might even want to start "at home". Astrotrain™ is a childs toy all rights to which are owned by Katara or its subsidiaries in Japan. It is understandable that children may find the name Astrotrain™ irresistable and the holder of the rights may be flexible on use by children. However you can expect no such flexibility as you are using the name with Wikipedia who is a major-world wide player; publishing under the name Astrotrain™ has put Wikipedia (and you) at risk of legal action. So you need to think again. This is notice that you must desist from using this Trade Mark. DP Kilfeather (Des) Desk1 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, you have uploaded images against Wikipedia image rules by specifying specific use. However, they are of such poor quality, that I would not be sorry to see them deleted in any case. I only hope your "book" is of better quality, as I can't see anyone prepared to part with their cash for those collection of photos, and given that your English leaves much to be desired, I can't see it being much of a good read either. Regards Astrotrain 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Life would be so boring without a little friendly banter. Bye Astrotrain™.
[edit] Advertising
Please cease placing advertising material on the Royal Navy article, see WP:NOT. Given the number of times this has been removed you are clearly acting against consensus. ALR 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What concensus? Some users have been kindly tidying my work up for me, as a newbie. Just a few users appear to be taking great pleasure in "biting newbies" rather than helping them that is not concensus. New proposals are in consideration to stop this. There is support for me placing my pictures in the manner used so far and this is currently being considered by a mediator and Wikipedia licencing specialists. I will 100% comply with their decision. But in the meantime I am happy to remove links to my website where this is causing offence to you. Desk1 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ALR. That looks much better. Des Desk1 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:Images
In short no. Megapixie 09:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally I suggest you read WP:OWN - once submitted to wikipedia it is no longer "your" work. Megapixie 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Megapixie. The Wikipedia licence people will be ruling. My licence terms are clearly stated on the image page. Of course Wiki licence specialists will delete them if not acceptable under policy (which they have not done yet but still may). But this whole issue is fraught with difficulties; the vast majority of images have similar public domain issues to yours. Vast numbers of people are claiming public domain for images without understanding what this means or whether it is legal, the vast majority of pictures cannot be placed into the public domain without permission from the owner of the pictures subject. Many pro photographers are goodwill placing restricted use pictures such as mine. This is a good thing as pictures feed our children and making them free for Wikipedia is voluntary work. Licence protection presents a major headache for us all. I hope to be part of the solution and not part of the problem and will be as helpful as I can to you and others. Wikipedia can make a key contribution to the propogation of knowledge around the world so it is critical to sort out the issues and not just bin pictures. A picture is worth a thousand words. Best regards, Des Desk1 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed your answer where you say "In short no." That is fine by me, you are responsible for own destiny, but I will not tag your pictures, even though they are worthy of tagging, if you just leave mine unless you have solid justifiable reason. Des Desk1 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay - look. We may have got off on the wrong foot - my understanding from http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf is that if photography is permitted in a museum - it is in every part of any museum I've taken photographs in - then I am not trespassing. If I'm not tresspassing then the photographs are mine. Once photography in general is permitted - then there can be no limitation on what happens to the photographs after the fact. Additionally you will note that all my photographs are of objects (not sculpture, text, paintings or photographs or any other object that might be construde as being an artistic work in it's own right). Megapixie 09:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Glad that we can start again. I am no expert. You have obviously checked things out. Best wishes, Des. Desk1 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WY2T1673 royalist.jpg
This is starting to get very silly. Des, when the licencing is resolved according to policy, please would you do me the kindness of letting me know what has been decided, and then look at pages TS Royalist and Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom) with a view to placing the image or another image back there.
It might be better to choose another licence or not to seek to restrict it if the decision is that the picture is not appropriate for wikipedia under the current restriction.
If you happen to have a different picture of the same vessel perhaps you could upload that with a wider licence and we use that instead?
Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rev reh v pd.jpg
Hi, unfortunately, the |thumb| pipe of an image will not stretch a smaller image up to the specified size. The original image therefore needs to be at least 300px wide as it still displays at its macimum 257px. Emoscopes Talk 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK working on it. Have tried re-uploading but having snags will have another go. Otherwise may be Friday as not available tomorrow. Anyway glad you like the pic. Des Desk1 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New image (Trafalgar 200 & Fleet Review talk pages) thanx & problems
Hi - great image, thanks, really nice - I've uploaded it to articles - however, am I doing something wrong, as caption won't show, except via 'pop-ups'? - Ballista 07:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't completed the pipe properly, you need to include a |thumb| part, as so; [[Image:Elizabeth II v pd.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Her Majesty [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]] with Admiral Sir Alan West on board HMS Endurance.]]. Hope that helps, iv'e corrected the problems. Emoscopes Talk 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picture dispute
Des,
How is the picture dispute? I've looked into a bit further, but I hope that perhaps the problem has worked itself out naturally already. Get back to me.
Wally 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wally, looks like it is sorted. Wikipedia Help gave me some advice on licencing which I have accepted. Now going through my images and relicencing most of those and putting in new ones. Some of the original images I expect will be deleted at some time by admin but this is OK as I cannot risk them being used elsewhere as they are among my best sellers. This is not an ideal situation but reasonable for me. Not so good for Wikipedia users though as they do not get to see the best available images. This is a whole area that could be improved by Wikipedia as thousands of pro photographers would make pictures available for the better good if rights were protected. The take-up on pictures is also pretty good with editors tidying up the presentation of them very nicely. Best wishes and thanks for your friendly support. Des Desk1 08:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EXIF showing a little bit too much information ?
Just a thought - your phone number is showing up in the EXIFs of the images you uploaded. There's no problem with that - but are you sure you want to have your number so publically visible ? Appologies if it's intentional (I can understand why it might be). I was actually wondering what glass you were using, which is why I noticed. Cheers. Megapixie 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Good to hear from you Megapixie. For those pics 28 - 300 3.5 L. The sliding zoom mechanism takes a bit of getting used to but it is great when taking pictures from awkward locations. EXIF data including phone number provides a useful licence management tool. My phone number is also listed on my website, essential really as I have to be easily contactable. Des Desk1 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Understood. I wasn't sure if that was the intention. Have a good weekend, regards. Megapixie 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
Desk, you didn't make it clear enough that they were your own pictures. People frequently use the free tags because they want to trick people into thinking they're free, when they're not. What I suggest is you do the following.
So please go through all your pictures and put the correct descriptions in. Say they're your pictures. Also remove duplicate descriptions. Your two MSDF pictures have the same summary on the image pages - separate them out.
I will add one picture back - I don't think editors should push two of their pictures onto an article. Of course you can add them to the relevant entries on those ship types if they currently have no images. John Smith's 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken on descriptions, each image must of course stand alone, done. Clarified for you that I am the copyright holder on Licencing, but this is already clear in the Licence details. Personally I think you did not select the best image if only selecting one. The point of the images is to illustrate that Japan strongly supported the event and went so far as to offer a salute and this in itself was an historic action. Other users had no objection to two images being used and other users have previously tidied up the presentation of the pictures? If you can source a better picture of this historic moment then please do so, but both pictures should be in for completeness. Can you put the other one back as well unless you have a strong objection? Also the Article text should be reverted back, the amendment claims that Japan only sent two ships and this is not accurate. Again the text is about Japan, Elizabeth II and Trafalgar 200 not just the ships.
The pictures were intended to support the main Article but of course can be used anywhere under the terms of the licence. Therefore if relevant to other Articles then of course you are free to use them. As far as I am aware there is no policy that editors cannot use their own pictures. I was there on the spot taking pictures and know that no others of this specific PoV were taken or are available, it is irrelvant who shot the pictures (other than for licencing) what is relevant is that they are being made available to Wikipedia from a pro source Gratis! Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. also put into the Article page for comment. Desk1 09:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:WY2T1673 royalist v pd.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:WY2T1673 royalist v pd.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
